Political Theater

At a meeting with “student leaders” last Thursday, University President Lee Bollinger assured us that the purpose of hosting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s president, would be educational, that the event would be an intellectual engagement with a very controversial world leader—a showcase for academic freedom and freedom of speech. He emphasized that contrary to student events, University and faculty sponsored events must have an educational, and not an expressly political purpose. However, after seeing nearly a week of organizing, panic, frustration, and grandstanding, and having witnessed the speech on South Lawn with my peers, by such educational and intellectual standards, this event was a colossal failure.

While he is not solely to blame for the failure of the event as a whole, Bollinger’s introductory remarks were both inappropriate and irresponsible, and violated his ostensible aims. Bollinger crossed the line from posing critical questions to performing a cheap political stunt.

Bollinger emphasized in the buildup to the event the virtues of “restrained” engagement in an academic setting with ideas and people that we find reprehensible—a not so subtle jab at the results of the Minuteman invitation last year. But, Bollinger himself exhibited little restraint with his excessively belligerent and inflammatory tone. Such a tone is even more upsetting when we remember that there are serious discussions and plans in the media and our government for a military strike on Iran. Rather than taking the opportunity to cool everyone down, Bollinger stoked passions on multiple fronts, an exceedingly dangerous and reckless act.

Perhaps the most damning aspect of Bollinger’s remarks was their inconsistent and hypocritical nature. Bollinger did not pose pointed questions to the president of Turkmenistan at his speech earlier in the day. In past years, he did not scold Russian President Vladimir Putin or Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf. I find it hard to believe that Bollinger would berate President Bush in such a manner as he did Ahmadinejad, even though Bush’s policies and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have raised concerns of human rights violations, use of torture, and the death of thousands of American soldiers and thousands of Iraqis.

Some have called Bollinger a hero for standing up to Ahmadinejad. However, given that he has taken no such heroic stance against any number of reprehensible world leaders and speakers that have visited campus, I cannot see how his actions are based on principle. Bollinger caved in to intense pressure and scrutiny. His actions were merely pragmatic. Provost Alan Brinkley practically conceded this much at a Common Meal in Earl Hall on Tuesday, declining to defend Bollinger’s remarks on their merits and simply responding that we should keep in mind that he was under a lot of pressure.

Bollinger did not ask any questions that were particularly distinguishable or more insightful than the ones students asked themselves, or the questions on 60 Minutes, or any number of other forums. Why did he need to make such a point of sticking it to Ahmadinejad? Why concentrate so much attention on his own positions when clearly so many people were ready to challenge Ahmadinejad from multiple perspectives? Bollinger clearly used his statement for political grandstanding, rather than to enlighten our academic community, and violated his own standards and the standards of the University.

Bollinger’s remarks, however, were merely the most visible example of the lack of dialogue and intellectual engagement in the past week. At a ROOTEd discussion on Monday evening, many students expressed their frustration about the difficulty of informing themselves and asking critical questions in an excessively polarized campus. In other arenas, I’ve encountered many students who have felt silenced and isolated because they didn’t exactly fit in with the very polarizing and hyperbolic positions of many of those doing some of the most visible organizing. Rather than provide forums for discussion, or teach-ins for posing relevant questions, “student leaders” organized a rally where, despite their intentions of openness, parties who were already invested could shout their beliefs at each other. The focus seemed to be on confirming previously held positions, rather than taking an opportunity to learn, a particularly tragic occurrence in the shadow of war.

I’m extremely disappointed in our University community. Despite Bollinger’s lofty aims of academic discourse and educational opportunity, Ahmadinejad’s visit was simply the latest and greatest example of an unending cycle of speakers, panels, and demonstrations where some of us crash into each other donning our armor of righteousness, and others stand on the sideline, silenced and confused. I’m left to wonder what possibilities there are to have real dialogue, community building, and intellectual growth, as opposed to shouting past each other. If we can’t figure that out in an institution of higher learning, how the hell are we supposed to reach any kind of peaceful resolutions in the rest of the world?

Christien Tompkins is a Columbia College senior majoring in African-American studies.
Freedom Dreams runs alternate Thursdays.
Specopinion@columbia.edu